Double Movie Review: Space Jam (1996) + Space Jam: A New Legacy (2021)

Hating on the 1996 film “Space Jam,” with Michael Jordan and Bugs Bunny, has been quite the popular trend on the internet in the last five years or so. And it’s one of those annoying things where every new person who brings it up acts as if they’re the first person to say they don’t like it, as if they have this hot, new take. Well, it’s time to combat that negativity a bit because “Space Jam” is an excellent film that still holds up in 2021.

But then we’re going to flip a switch and go from combating the negativity to feeding it. Not by turning on “Space Jam” itself. But by unleashing on the absolute dumpster fire that is “Space Jam: A New Legacy,” an early candidate for worst movie of 2021.

But first, “Space Jam.”

I think the most common thing I’ve heard is that “Space Jam” is a movie built solely on childhood nostalgia and that it gets worse when you watch it as an adult. In other words, it doesn’t hold up. I understand that principle. Childhood nostalgia is a very common thing that in many cases has boosted popular movies that I personally think are overrated. Combine that with holiday nostalgia and there are so many terrible movies that are praised as masterpieces.

First off, I don’t think it’s totally fair to completely write off the importance of nostalgia. As kids we all have standards that aren’t as strict when it comes to which movies we enjoy. And I think it’s totally valid to have certain attachments to films that meant a lot to us, even if we grow up and learn more about what actually makes good movies. We can go back and differentiate between the movies that actually were good vs. the ones that were only good because we were seven years old and weren’t as overly critical. But I still think it’s totally fine to say we like a movie that meant a lot to us as a child, even if we acknowledge later that it isn’t perfect.

That said, in the midst of this giant wave of people on the internet claiming “Space Jam” doesn’t hold up, I’ve watched it several times. A few times with the specific question in my mind of “Does this REALLY hold up as a good movie or do I just like it because it was perfect for me as a kid?” And my answer every time comes out as, YES. It DOES hold up as a good movie. Even in 2021. I watched it and the sequel back-to-back on HBO Max on Friday afternoon. And I loved every minute of my experience watching. I almost watched it again just to get the bad taste of its sequel out of my mouth.

I obviously can’t speak for everyone on the internet or every 90s child like myself who grew up loving “Space Jam,” but for me it was the perfect storm of everything that I loved as a kid. Like most people, I grew up watching cartoons on Saturday mornings. And although Looney Tunes dates back way before I was a kid, their cultural impact has been so great across many generations that they also meant a lot to me when I was young. One of my other passions was basketball. I played Super Nintendo games like NBA Jam and NBA Showdown all the time, so I knew all the teams well. And I watched my Utah Jazz at every moment I could. I loved getting the paper delivered every day so that I could check the scores and look at the stats of the previous night’s games.

I don’t know when exactly it was that I watched “Space Jam” for the first time. It would’ve come out when I was seven years old, right at the peak of the Utah Jazz’s greatness. Our team faced Michael Jordan in the finals two years in a row in the late 90s, shortly after the release of “Space Jam.” I don’t remember seeing “Space Jam” in theaters, but I do know that I watched it and loved it as a kid because it combined those two passions of mine. Cartoons and 90s basketball. I knew all the players and teams that were featured in the movie. So that was fun for me. And I loved all of the Looney Tunes. Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, and squad playing basketball with Michael Jordan? You can’t get a more perfect combination of two things for young Adam. Michael Jordan himself may have been my mortal enemy, but he was still part of the era of basketball that I love so much.

But that’s me as a kid. My opinion of it as an adult? Well, for one it has one of the greatest soundtracks for any sports movie. From the intro to Michael Jordan playing basketball as a kid to the Looney Tunes taking the court, every song elevates the sports sequences in the movie. The title track “Space Jam” by Quad City DJ’s is one of the most motivational songs ever when it comes to getting yourself pumped up for something. And I don’t even like rap, but that song is perfection. Add that to the likes of “Fly Like an Eagle,” “I Believe I Can Fly” and “Basketball Jones” are also perfect. In addition to the soundtrack, I think it’s a clever idea to Bugs and crew recruit Michael Jordan to help them beat the Monstars after said little aliens became very large and scary after the Looney Tunes challenged them to a game of basketball.

And as a 90s basketball fan, there’s a lot of references from Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, Mugsy Bogues, Larry Johnson, and Shawn Bradley that make me laugh. Things that non-basketball fans watching “Space Jam” might not understand. And I don’t know when I first caught it, but Shawn Bradley at one point in the movie says that maybe he should go back and serve another mission for his Church. As a BYU fan, that also makes me laugh. So I like the element of the movie that Michael Jordan is motivated to help his fellow NBA friends get their powers back, while the Looney Tunes are motivated by not wanting to become slaves to these aliens. Solid motivation from both sides, followed by some entertainingly silly basketball scenes that fit perfectly into the zany catalogue of the Looney Tunes.

I think the most clever part of “Space Jam” is that it provides an alternate narrative as to why Michael Jordan un-retired and came back to the NBA after he retired to play baseball. The Looney Tunes sparked the desire in him to play basketball again. In fact, to this day I will, in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way, blame the Looney Tunes for why my Jazz never won a title. If they hadn’t convinced Michael Jordan to play basketball again, maybe he would’ve stayed retired and then the Jazz would’ve played Alonzo Mourning’s Heat in 1996-97 and Reggie Miller’s Pacers in 1997-98. Two tough teams, but we were better than both of them.

So yeah, that perfect crossover of two things I love, being a great tribute to both, makes “Space Jam” a special movie for me. One I have seen and watched many times.

But now it’s time to analyze this sequel.

If I’m being perfectly transparent, I’ve never been opposed to the idea of a “Space Jam” sequel. It’s something that they’ve tried to do ever since the first movie got released. But they could never get Michael Jordan back to do another one. And the cards never fell in place with any other idea they tried. So it’s a sequel that sat on the shelf for two decades. Until LeBron James came into the picture and was obviously interested in participating.

I will say, if there’s any athlete to come in and take the place of Michael Jordan in a “Space Jam” sequel, LeBron makes the most sense. Jordan was the best player of his era and LeBron is the best player of his. I mean, don’t get me started on the Jordan vs. LeBron debate. It’s a stupid one. But nevertheless, you can’t do a “Space Jam” sequel today with anyone else. Not only is LeBron the best player today, but he also has a passion for film. He’s been in several movies already, as himself and as a voice actor. I imagine that will continue after he’s retired. I think that’s part of the reason why he’s now playing for the Lakers. Not just for basketball reasons, but it makes it easy for the Hollywood of it all.

But how do you construct a plot around a LeBron in “Space Jam” sequel that makes sense and is just as clever as the first movie? Given that this movie has been rumored for a long time, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this. I don’t know if I have the perfect answer, but just like Michael Jordan being convinced to come back to the NBA because of the Looney Tunes, you could do something along the lines of the Looney Tunes convincing LeBron to go back and play in Cleveland after he ditched that franchise for the Heat for four years. Or set it in between his first and second year for the Lakers, the first being a disaster and the second winning him a title. There’s options here to make the plot clever.

But of the many things this sequel does wrong, that plot is one of them. There is no creativity in the movie in regards to it being a meta event for LeBron’s actual basketball career. Instead it revolves around LeBron’s fictional son being more into video games than basketball and LeBron being the world’s worst dad in wanting his son to do what LeBron wants him to do rather than being happy about what his son wants to do. Not only did this feel like an extremely safe route to go, but it was highly predictable in how it was going to play out and LeBron did not do a great job of selling himself as this grumpy Dad. I’m not going to claim that LeBron is a bad actor that should stick to sports because I have seen him do well in other things. But he was really bad. In fact, the kid who plays his son, who is not LeBron’s real son or even remotely based on LeBron’s son Bronny, is much better than LeBron in this movie.

On top of that clunky narrative, the actual villain of this movie is played by Don Cheadle. He plays a computer A.I. thing like an advanced Siri that lives in the computer world. His name is Al G. Rhythm. And I wish I made that up. And this Al G. Rhythm gets offended and starts a vendetta against LeBron because, after Warner Bros. invited LeBron into their studio to suggest that LeBron be a part of every Warner Bros. franchise, an idea that Al G. Rhythm came up with, LeBron says that’s the worst idea ever and leaves. So this Al G. Rhythm kidnaps LeBron’s son, then tells LeBron that if he wants his son back, he’s going to have to go into the Warner Bros. world and challenge him to a game of basketball.

And that’s our plot. Not this meta-creation that does a perfect job of combining Looney Tunes and basketball, mixed in with Jordan’s life. A forced father/son narrative based on nothing and executed horrifically combined with the strangest, goofiest plot that even feels a bit much for something related to the Looney Tunes.

And as many have already said in other reviews around the internet, it’s Warner Bros. being a little too full of themselves. Some of called this a feature-length advertisement for HBO Max. An assessment I most certainly don’t disagree. Not only do we get this montage in the studio pitch that I described with LeBron in many of the big Warner franchises, but when LeBron is out recruiting his team, he winds up on a mission with Bugs Bunny to gather up the Looney Tunes, who are scattered throughout the Warner Bros. universe in things like the Batman world, Austin Powers, Mad Max: Fury Road, and Wonder Woman.

Why are they scattered like this?

I can’t remember. But it’s only for the sake of Warner Bros. throwing their whole kitchen sink at this movie. How many of their characters from everything they own can they cram onto the screen?

But this isn’t all. When the basketball game is finally played in the movie’s second half, most of the crowd consists of every Warner Bros. character you can think of watching this game. And throughout the game, we constantly pan over to different characters that Warner Bros. features on the screen. Or rather, shots that look like people cosplaying as these characters.

Now you might be wondering what the difference is between something like this vs. the likes of “Ready Player One” and “Ralph Breaks the Internet,” two movies that I really enjoyed that also implemented a ton of property that the respective studios owned. And the difference is that both “Ready Player One” and “Ralph Breaks the Internet” made good use of these characters and places they visited. They made them critical elements of their plot. Like in “Ready Player One,” you can choose whatever Avatar you want to represent you when you’re in the digital world and many of the characters chosen represented the personalities of the people who chose them. And there’s messages that the movie used with all of this. In “Space Jam: A New Legacy,” nothing involving any of these Warner Bros. properties had any effect on the plot of the movie itself. It was just a shameless highlight reel of Warner Bros. properties that they felt like throwing on the screen for no good reason.

Granted, LeBron’s initial plan when he knew he had to play a basketball game against Al G. Rhythm’s Goon Squad team was to recruit the likes of Superman, King Kong, and the Iron Giant to play on his team. If we had something like that, where all of these Warner Bros. characters were playing a basketball game with LeBron, that could’ve been zany and fun. But that didn’t happen. They were all just there to… watch.

So if the eventual game plan for the movie was for LeBron to play a basketball game with the Looney Tunes, why not just cut to the chase and make this a crossover with LeBron James and the Looney Tunes? You know, like the first movie did? Only include characters that end up as relevant to the plot of the movie you’re making. That part of the movie just became a bit much. I kept asking to myself, why? What is happening? What is the purpose of all of this? And there was none. It was just a big, giant mess of a thing that was too distracting from the plot at hand. A plot that, as I mentioned, was not cleverly put together in the first place. So it appeared that they put more effort into throwing everything they owned at this movie than they did simply making a sequel that does justice to the first movie. And that was frustrating.

And then after all of this nonsense and wasted movie was playing out, the basketball game itself with LeBron and the Looney Tunes wasn’t even the least bit entertaining. Granted, the actual basketball sequences in the first movie were simply silly and fun. Not anything dramatic and intense like a serious sports drama. But it was still very entertaining watching the Looney Tunes play at least a somewhat normal game of basketball with Jordan. And seeing the energy they put into the second half to beat the Monstars when they thought they were drinking “Michael’s Secret Stuff” provided a good lesson that they had it in themselves to do well the whole time. The LeBron basketball game, which is a game that had no cohesive rules, was boring. It was a cut and paste thing from the original, done to the extreme with the exaggerated gameplay that LeBron’s son in the movie invented. So there wasn’t any sort of payoff to anything that happened that felt rewarding.

I don’t know what I expected from this movie. I didn’t think it was going to be a great movie, nor did I believe that they could catch lightning in a bottle a second time. But at the least, I expected more than what I got. Even knowing that the CGI Looney Tunes were going to be us ugly as you can get after seeing the movie’s trailers. I don’t know why LeBron was animated in the Looney Tunes world when Michael Jordan wasn’t. And I don’t know why they even attempted to do live-action CGI creations of the Looney Tunes when they were in the live action world. But if that was the movie’s only problem, I could’ve lived with that. But whatever it was that I was expecting from this movie, it wound up as a whole lot worse. And I spent each frame of the movie and each continued scene being absolutely flabbergasted at this giant, mess of a film that I was experiencing.

And to me this isn’t just a throwaway bad movie that I will forget about in a week’s time. This is a movie where I have become increasingly angry at. I was going on a walk after I watched and I could just feel the anger burning and festering inside of me. This is a franchise and a property that I cared deeply about that they took and smeared into the mud, creating what I think is the absolute worst possible sequel that they could come up with. And I don’t think anyone at Warner Bros’ even really cared. And that makes me furious.

A grade for both of these movies? Well, we have a childhood favorite of mine that is still one of my favorites as an adult and a new sequel that borderline offensive. So this shouldn’t be a surprise to you:

Space Jam: 10/10

Space Jam: A New Legacy: 3/10

P.S. – Maybe you thought I was going for a 1/10. But as bad and offensive as this movie is, it’s not as bad as “The Emoji Movie,” which is a movie I gave a 1/10 to. I don’t like giving 1/10s. And I rarely go below 5/10. So yeah, it’s not a 1/10, but a 3/10 is still really bad in my book. 

Avocado Toast Review

Have you ever had found yourself in a discussion with someone from an older generation who is complaining about all the young kids of today and erroneously refers to them as Millennials? And you end up super frustrated, not just from what that person had to say, but because they lumped you as a true Millennial in with Gen Z? Us millennials don’t like that. There is a definite generational gap between Millennials and Gen Z, yet some people think of Millennial as synonymous with young people, which is a wildly false misconception. 

Or better yet, have you ever talked to a person who is making fun of Millennials, yet doesn’t realize they are one? That one is rather amusing. And is the exact premise of Tyler Farr’s new comedy “Avocado Toast.” A guy named Adam is having an argument with his friends about Millennials when he learns, much to his shock and dismay, that he is one. He suffers a bit of an identity crisis and decides to go down quite the rabbit hole in discovering and accepting his new found Millennialism, essentially upheaving his whole life and finding a new sense of freedom when he feels he can do what he wants to do instead of living a rigid, boring life.

“Avocado Toast” is a movie that I’ve been following for quite some time now. Writer and director Tyler Farr is a good friend of mine. We connected in 2013 and stayed in touch partially due to our shared love of film, him being on the filmmaking side of things and me being on the journalism side of things where I love writing about and reviewing movies. In 2015, he let me be one of the first to watch and review his movie “Winning Formula” and now here we are six years later with his next film. It’s been great watching this movie go from a simple idea to now a fully completed film. And now comes the challenge to sum all that up into one review, which is a lot more daunting of a task when I know the person who made the film is most definitely going to read everything that I write about it.

Naturally this gives me a slightly different perspective than the random Joe Schmoe who randomly stumbles on this, but it’s also been a good mental exercise in remembering that every movie that’s been made is someone’s life work. Even if I don’t like it, I should remember to always respect the effort that went into it. I’ve had a few occasions over the years to talk to a filmmaker about a film they’ve made and that results in a different experience because I get a peek into what went into the project. Yet regardless of whether or not I talked to a filmmaker or witnessed it get made, every movie has a similar story.

I could go down this rabbit hole for quite some time, but those of you who clicked this link did so to read a review, not listen to me philosophize about the process of filmmaking or how we should approach critiquing something. So we move on. And my one challenge from Tyler when he asked me if I wanted to review this movie is to be open and honest. So that is exactly what I will set out to do. But in a positive way that will be helpful for everyone.

Justin Ray in "Avocado Toast"

And if we’re being honest here… I watched an entire movie called “Avocado Toast” and did not see one single person eat any avocado toast. I demand a refund!

I also heard people in this movie talk about Millennials being people who were born between 1982-2004. I had to pause the movie on that one and go double check. While the character of Adam in the movie was shocked to learn that Millennials go all the way back to 1982, I was a bit taken aback that the range went all the way up to 2004. In doing my research, the movie isn’t necessarily wrong. 1982-2004 is an age range that some people put on Millennials, but 1981-1996 seems to be a more widely accepted range. And that’s one that makes a lot more sense to me personally. There’s definitely a massive difference between those of us born in the 80s and early 90s than those born in the late 90s and 2000s. In my book, Gen Z starts with people born in 1997. That goes back to my conversation at the beginning.

Anyways, if those were the only two complaints I had about this movie, I’m sure Tyler would be jumping for joy that he won me over because I didn’t necessarily praise his last movie as much as he probably hoped I would. But unfortunately I do have my issues with this movie. We’ll get to those in a bit, though. I want to start with positivity.

Despite me being a dork about the title, that actually is a strength. It’s a perfectly titled movie that grabs people’s attention. And it’s a clever subject matter. A movie about Millennials is a movie that will pique the interest of us Millennials. I’ve actually seen several reactions from people who do fall into the Joe Schmoe category. It’s a movie about their generation that has them interested. And there’s a lot of clever, funny references that people will get a kick out of. I particularly got a chuckle out of the Christopher Columbus reference. That’s an argument that we now have every year. You could say it’s a Millennial discussion.

I also liked the performances from our lead characters. Justin Ray is the actor who plays Adam, the movie’s main character. And my goodness is he having an absolute blast in this role. Is it fully realistic for a guy who’s been married for 10 years with a successful career and a happy family to drop everything and change his life because he learned he belonged in a different generational category than he thought? Not really, but Justin Ray owns this character and relishes in everything he’s given to do. Having a likeable lead character goes a long way in forgiving some of the other bumps along the way. Likewise, did I enjoy the fact that he started cheating on his wife by dating another girl? Not really. But goodness is Mikayla Iverson, the girl who plays his new crush, a charming and loveable character.

On the flip side, his wife Jennifer, played by Jyllian Petrie, is also a loving and charming woman. Thus while I’m not sure from a story perspective that certain things really make sense, we have ourselves caught up in a love triangle between a lead male who is quite fantastic and two lead females who are equally as fantastic. There eventually came a point where I felt that the movie needed to stop being so silly and goofy and start having consequences to the dumb things this guy was doing or else the plot was going to completely lose me. And it did. When all three of these leads were asked to stop being silly and start getting emotional, it actually got me. I felt for Adam when he realized he made a lot of mistakes and wants to start fixing things. I felt for Jennifer when she wanted her husband back. And I felt for Sydney, the new crush, when she started to learn who this guy really is.

Mikayla Iverson and Justin Ray in "Avocado Toast"

What didn’t work as well for me was everything around these three, unfortunately. While there were a lot of clever things that were happening in the movie, there was also a lot of things that I didn’t think were as clever or funny. That right there is the nature of comedy, though. Every once in a while you get a movie that makes you laugh hysterically throughout, but those are more rare. Even the funniest of comedians have jokes that don’t land and most comedies can be hit and miss. Comedy is something that’s refined over time. Comedians or comedy writers have to live and learn. Take a shot, see what works, and fix things or throw things out that didn’t work. There was just a lot more miss here than I was hoping for.

For one, I personally don’t like poop jokes in my movies. And this movie has an extended poop joke gag that plays throughout. Maybe some will laugh. I thought it was gross. But it kept going. Then kept coming back. I also didn’t like pretty much anything with the friend named Connor. Maybe a lot of Millennials will relate to having roommates or friends like that, but I just kinda found him out of place and distracting. Also, some of the other side characters were a bit too exaggerated. The world’s rudest cashier, the world’s most incompetent care salesman, and the coworker who hordes all the fruit snacks are maybe people that represent real life human beings that we’ve seen, but they were exaggerated to the point where they didn’t feel like real human beings to me. Maybe those jokes will land with some, but not for me.

We also had a hard time balancing the comedy and drama. Like I referenced earlier, there came a point where I was hoping the movie would start having consequences to the silliness. And while it did eventually and that drama worked, the drama could’ve been more impactful if it was allowed to grow a bit more. Then we had a few bait-and-switches that I don’t want to get too much into where I think we undercut the drama that was working just to get a few extra laughs in. I was actually feeling sentimental and good. But the movie didn’t quite see it through in a way that was fully satisfying.

But like I said, those complaints come with the nature of comedy and are quite subjective. Balancing comedy and drama one of the age old questions with filmmaking. I’m not sure there’s a perfect formula that pleases everyone. And I’m a bit more of a Grinch, anyways, when it comes to comedy. I like laughing, but there are so many modern comedies that just aren’t funny to me, so maybe take what I say about comedy with a grain of salt.

Nevertheless, despite being a bit rough around the edges with some of the jokes and many of the side characters, I still honestly think that the majority of the movie remains solidly intact. I loved just about everything with the main three characters and it was a solid premise that lands in a lot of ways. A noticeable improvement from Tyler’s last outing, in my opinion. If you want to give a chance, you can check it out on pretty much any PVOD platform where you rent and buy movies. Google Play, iTunes, Apple TV, Vudu, etc. I observed on Google TV that it could be rented for $4 and purchased for $9. So if you want to support Tyler or you want to check out a silly movie about Millennials, I recommend you give this one a chance!

Grade: 8/10

Movie Preview: July 2021

It’s been a long time since I’ve been on this blog doing my monthly movie preview segment. A 15-month hiatus from something that I used to do every single month ever since I started this blog in 2012. But that’s COVID for you. This is only my third post of the year when in pre-COVID times I’d have 70-100 posts by the end of the year. But I’m working on getting back into the groove of things. And with “F9” from the Fast and Furious franchise opening to $70 million in the final weekend of June, preceded by “A Quiet Place Part II” knocking out $50 million over Memorial Day weekend, there are no more excuses. Movies are back. We’re still in recovery mode, but things are finally looking stable enough for me to start back up again.

If you’re new to my world in the past 15 months, this is a segment where I inform you of what’s coming out each month in theaters, tell you a bit about the movie if necessary, and give an outlook on what its box office potential might be.

Information on release dates is courtesy of the-numbers.com and boxofficepro.com. Release dates are for the domestic box office, which is the United States and Canada.

July 2 – 4

There’s five weekends in July and by the time you’re reading this we’ll be well into this first weekend, which is Independence Day weekend in the United States. So maybe you’re out celebrating rather than reading things online, but we have two major releases this weekend, led by DreamWorks Animation’s The Boss Baby: Family Business. Reviews for this aren’t necessarily glowing, but this wasn’t a movie made for the critics. “The Boss Baby,” despite also have mixed to negative reviews, was a major hit with the young audience, a go-to movie for many kids over the last four years. In addition to this sequel, it’s also had a Netflix series that premiered in 2018 and has had four seasons already. So “Family Business” is sure to be a hit with the young kids as it sees the two main brothers, 40 years later and fully-grown adults, go back to being young, talking babies again.

The challenge to predicting how much this will make, outside that being hard to predict for anything right now, is that it’s debuting in theaters and on Peacock. How many parents will take their kids to the theater to see it and how many will sign up for Peacock to watch it for a much more discounted price than taking the whole family to theaters? The first movie opened to a shocking $50.2 million. In pre-COVID terms, I would say this would do in the range of $30-50 million if well-advertised, which I’m not sure it has been. Without looking at actual projections and Thursday night totals, I would’ve said $15-30 million. There’s not much comparisons, but “Tom and Jerry” did about $15 million in March with its hybrid release. “Cruella” in May did $21 million. So that’s currently the 2021 standard for family hybrid releases. Box Office Pro projected a $16.3 million opening weekend. It earned $1.3 million Thursday evening.

The other movie battling “The Boss Baby” is The Forever Purge. This is the fifth movie in the Purge franchise, whose simple premise is that once a year, for a period of 12 hours, all crime becomes legal, including murder. Each film has had its own spin on things, usually with not-so-subtle social commentary included. This movie’s take is that that the Purge will last… forever. In other words, a group of people continue to purge after the Purge has been completed. Or something along those lines. Financially the previous four have been extremely consistent, making between $64-79 million domestically. The first three all opened around $30 million, while the fourth one did just $17 million, but opened on a Wednesday and had had $31 million by the end of the 5-day weekend. So $20-30 million would seem like it would make sense, but these are different times. In May “Spiral,” the latest in the Saw franchise, opened to $8.7 million. Box Office Pro is projecting $9.6 million. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it go a tad bit higher, encroaching on $15 million, but we’ll see. It also opened to $1.3 million Thursday night, which is less than half of what the previous two movies in the franchise did.

There are always a handful of smaller releases that come out each month. And I usually only cover the major releases scheduled for wide release, mostly because it’s often hard to predict which smaller releases are actually coming out. But given that we’re in the middle of this weekend already, we do know that A24 is releasing the indie film Zola into 1,468 theaters. That’s a 2020 Sundance film that is based on a viral Twitter thread and tells the story of a stripper named Zola who takes a trip with her friend to Florida. We also have the documentary Summer of Soul (…Or, When Revolution Could Not Be Televised) being released in 752 theaters by Searchlight. It’s directed by Questlove and was a 2021 Sundance release about the 1969 Harlem Culture Festival. It was purchased by Searchlight for $12 million and will also got released on Hulu this weekend. Two weekends ago, the Edgar Wright directed documentary “The Sparks Brothers” opened in 534 theaters and made $273,530. “Summer of Soul” will be somewhere in that range, while “Zola” will look to grab a couple million.

July 9 – 11

Only one wide release in the second weekend of July and it’s a huge one. Marvel’s Black Widow will finally be hitting theaters. This was supposed to kick off Phase 4 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Last May. But it was one of our first COVID casualties. It’s been repeatedly kicked down the schedule, which has made some fans upset and impatient. In hindsight that’s probably a good thing, though. Warner Bros. experimented with “Wonder Woman 1984” in December and that only made $46 million TOTAL. It was also a hybrid release, so who knows how much Warner Bros. wound up making with new HBO Max subscriptions, but they almost certainly left a ton of money on the table by not being patient. And now “Black Widow” looks to sprint past that $46 million total in just a couple of days.

It does seem a bit crazy that we’re 13 years into the MCU and just finally getting the “Black Widow” movie that fans have been begging for ever since Natasha first showed up in “Iron Man 2” back in 2010. She went through four Avengers movies and a couple of Captain America movies, and, spoilers for “Avengers: Endgame,” got killed off before finally getting her own solo movie. So yeah, this will go into the prequel realm of sorts. We’re going back to the “Captain America: Civil War” era of the timeline. And although everyone knows her fate by now, one of the major attractions is that of Florence Pugh, who plays Natasha’s sister Yelena in this movie. While Scarlett Johansson gets her swan song film, Florence Pugh is the shining new star and will most certainly be taking the mantle from Scar-Jo in future movies

In regards to the box office, Marvel solo movies typically open in the $80-100 million range. Sequels can go a bit higher. $100-125 million or so. I would probably classify this in this sequel range given that fans have known Black Widow for over a decade. But with the world not quite being ready to return to full force, that first range seems about right. “Captain Marvel” actually opened to $153 million, but that was a month before “Avengers: Endgame” and many fans felt obligated to catch that before seeing “Endgame.” This is also technically another hybrid release. Disney will be putting this on Disney+ for the $30 premium tag. That might eat into its total a bit. But no one was probably happier than Disney seeing “F9” break out with $70 million because that means a high total like that is actually possible. “Black Widow” will probably go a few notches higher than that, perhaps reaching the $85 million opening of “Doctor Strange.”

 

July 16 – 18

If “Black Widow” follows the trajectory of “Doctor Strange,” it’ll be looking at a repeat No. 1 with around $40-45 million. “Doctor Strange” did $42 million in its second weekend. “Black Widow” should at least get $35 million, which I imagine will be plenty to top this weekend’s crop of new arrivals, which are led by LeBron James and Bugs Bunny in Space Jam: A New Legacy. After the Lakers experienced an early first round exit in this year’s playoffs, when asked if he was going to play in the Olympics, LeBron instead said that he was going to go play with Tune Squad instead, meaning he’s in full promotion mode right now. “Space Jam” was released in 1996 and starred Michael Jordan helping the Looney Tunes beat the Monstars, who stole the powers of a few of his NBA friends. They’ve been trying to do a sequel for a long time, but it never panned out until now. In this sequel, the Goon Squad kidnaps LeBron’s son and forces him to play a game of basketball against them to get his son back. Lose and he never sees his son and the Looney Tunes also get deleted.

Not that it’s a good comparison, but the original “Space Jam” opened to $27 million in 1996 and wound up as the 15^th highest grossing movie that year with $85.4 million. Perhaps coincidentally, that’s probably the range “A New Legacy” is looking at, too. Although $27 million with 1996 ticket prices would be about $56 million with today’s ticket prices. So I don’t know if that’s a win. Maybe in pre-COVID times, “A New Legacy” could’ve got close to $50 million. But all things considered, that seems like a very long shot. It’s also an HBO Max hybrid release, so many might choose to stay home and watch it, especially if reviews end up matching the enthusiasm towards the trailer, which has certainly been mixed.

“Space Jam” will be competing with Escape Room: Tournament of Champions for the runner-up spot this weekend. And depending on how things, this could theoretically be a close battle. A horror movie based on the Escape Room experience, which has been quite popular in recent years, the first movie was a surprise hit back in January 2019, opening to $18.2 million and earning $57 million total at the domestic box office, with $155 million worldwide. Not bad for a horror film budgeted at $9 million. Now despite the surprise performance, the Rotten Tomatoes score for the film was 51 percent, both for critics and the audience meter. So it’s not like it was a wildly beloved movie. Combine that with the horror sequel issue and the whole pandemic thing and an $18 million opening is probably a stretch. But low budget horror movies don’t need to make much at all to be a success, so it’s probably in good position.

A movie that may or may not be coming to a theater near you is Gunpowder Milkshake. It’s a female-led action film starring Karen Gillan, Michelle Yeoh, Angela Bassett and Paul Giamatti. Karen Gillan plays a hitwoman who teams up with a bunch of other hitwoman and assassins to accomplish a certain mission. I say this may or may not be coming to a theater near you because Netflix has the distribution rights in the U.S. and Canada, while STX has the international distribution rights. The trailer for Netflix does say it’s coming to select theaters and Netflix on July 14, which is a Wednesday. How many theaters will that be? Who knows. Netflix actually struck a deal with Cinemark back in May to release some of their films theatrically. But when Netflix does release movies in theaters, they don’t release box office numbers. So we’ll never know what the theater count will be or how well it does. But if it doesn’t come to a theater near you, it will be coming to a Netflix near you.

 

July 23 – 25

The fourth weekend of July sees the blockbuster prequel the whole world has been begging for. And if you think that sounds a bit sarcastic, that’s because it is. It’s Snake Eyes: G.I. Joe Origins. Although I should be fair because there are G.I. Joe fans that wouldn’t be too happy with me if I were to claim that no one is excited for this movie. There might be a few. But the overall general sense of enthusiasm doesn’t seem extremely high. Both G.I. Joe movies, “Rise of Cobra” in 2009 and “Retaliation” in 2013 were modest successes, but compared its fellow toy to movie franchise in Transformers, it didn’t quite take off in the way Paramount was hoping. But Paramount is hoping to spark some life into and they’re doing so using arguably the most popular character in Snake Eyes. Playing Snake Eyes is Henry Golding from “Crazy Rich Asians” fame. So things could be worse. “Rise of Cobra” opened to $54 million, Retaliation” $40 million. I’m not sure it hits either of those. For some reason “Mortal Kombat” and its $23.3 million opening seems like a better comparison here, but it could go higher.

Opening alongside “Snake Eyes,” and with an outside chance to pull the upset is M. Night Shyamalan’s new mystery thriller Old. The trailer for this shows a family going to a beach and suddenly various people around start aging mysteriously, becoming many years older in just a few minutes according to the vantage point of others on the beach. It also appears that they are unable to leave the beach. So very much in Shyamalan’s wheelhouse. The success of the movie will ultimately depend on which Shyamalan showed up to direct. Is it the Shyamalan who directed the likes of “The Sixth Sense,” “Unbreakable” and “Split”? Or the Shyamalan who directed “The Happening,” “After Earth” and “The Last Airbender”? If it’s the former and word of mouth is positive, this could turn into a sleeper hit, although it will probably rely on having longer legs at the box office rather than a high opening. It’s worth noting, though, that most of Shyamalan’s movies opened in the $25-40 million range. $18 million is his low. But these aren’t exactly normal times, so perhaps expectations should be tempered. 

The smaller release of this weekend is The Comeback Trail. Although despite small expectations, the cast here is rather large. The movie stars Robert De Niro, Tommy Lee Jones, Morgan Freeman and Zach Braff. It’s directed by George Gallo, one of the writers of the Bad Boys movies. The movie is a crime comedy about two film producers who decide to make a movie where they kill their lead star in a dangerous stunt so they can get insurance money from his death to pay off a mob debt. The movie is being distributed by Cloudburst Entertainment, a smaller company who have only released one film so far, that of “Infidel” in September 2020 when theaters were starting to reopen again. That opened to $1.3 million, which wasn’t awful for pandemic standards. I’m not sure this one is expected to earn much more than that, but that’ll depend on how many theaters it opens in and what the reviews are like.

 

July 30 – Aug 1

And the final weekend will see Disney on top of the box office with Jungle Cruise. This was yet another COVID casualty from last year. Although instead of slowly pushing it down the road a few months at a time, when theaters closed up Disney simply threw it forward a year from July 2020 to July 2021. The marketing was in full force when the pandemic hit, so Disney has to hope that people are still excited enough to turn out. The movie is based on the popular Disneyland ride where a tour guide telling a continuous stream of Dad jokes takes you down the river on a boat. Like with “Pirates of the Caribbean,” much plot has to be added to turn it into a successful movie. Disney would certainly hope they can catch lightning in a bottle again like they did with “Pirates.” And they do have Dwayne Johnson and Emily Blunt starring in the film, two very big box office draws. Like with “Raya,” “Cruella” and “Black Widow,” Disney has chosen to do the hybrid release in theaters and Disney+ premier access. The current comparison with that is “Cruella,” which opened to $21 million with that strategy.

Not in contention to pull an upset, but hoping to appeal to indie crowds for a potentially leggy box office run will be A24’s The Green Knight. A24 is not necessarily known for their massive box office hits, but they are known for their unconventional films, which has made them one of the more popular indie distributers. And “The Green Knight” is another one that has people’s attention. It’s an Arthurian legend based on the poem “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight,” dating back to the 14 Century. Sir Gawain, King Arthur’s nephew accepts a challenge from the Green Knight. The Green Knight dares anyone to strike him with an axe and will give a return blow a year later to whoever does. Gawain chops off the Green Knight’s head, so the Green Knight picks up his head and says he’ll be back in a year to chop off Gawain’s head. This movie adaptation is directed by David Lowery, director of 2016’s “Pete’s Dragon” and “A Ghost Story.” Dev Patel stars as Sir Gawain, with Alicia Vickander and Joel Edgerton co-starring.

The final movie from this month that we’ll be talking about is another smaller indie film, Stillwater. In regards to box office, both “Stillwater” and “The Green Knight” will be looking to play the long game, so the opening weekend totals are less important than the overall reaction and the lengthy box office run. “Stillwater” is distributed by Focus Features and is directed by Tom McCarthy, whose last theatrically released film was “Spotlight,” which won best picture. Because of that, “Stillwater” is thought to be a potential awards contender, although it’s being released a tad bit early if it wants to really contend for that. But it stars Matt Damon as a father who travels from Oklahoma to France to help his estranged daughter, played by Abigail Breslin, who has been charged with the murder of her friend and partner. The movie will be premiering a few weeks prior at the Cannes Film Festival (July 6-17) before its theatrical release, so the reaction there will clue us in on what its award potential actually is.

The 93rd Academy Awards: Predictions

It's time again for my Oscar predictions! And this has been the most unique Oscar season to say the least. And the longest as they pushed the ceremony to late April due to COVID, extending the release date eligibility through February. That means some of these nominees were what I considered 2020 films and made or were eligible for my 2020 year end list while others will be eligible for my 2021 year end list. While the Oscars extended their eligibility, I didn't. Anyways, I haven't been as active on this blog for various reasons, and you can ask me about that later. But there's a few posts that I deem necessary to post on here instead of my personal social media pages. And this is one of them, if for nothing else than to have it as a reference that I can go back to. But here are my yearly predictions for the Oscars, along with my personal picks if I had a vote. And whatever commentary I decide to add with each. I hope you enjoy! 

Documentary (Short Subject):

Nominations:

- "Colette" - Anthony Giacchino and Alice Doyard
- "A Concerto is a Conversation" - Ben Proudfoot and Kris Bowers
- "Do Not Split" - Andres Hammer and Charlotte Cook
- "Hunger Ward" - Skye Fitzgerald and Michael Scheuerman
- "A Love Song for Latasha" - Sophia Nahli and Janice Duncan

Will Win:

- "A Love Song for Latasha" - Sophia Nahli and Janice Duncan

Should Win:

- "Colette" - Anthony Giacchino and Alice Doyard

I always advocate for people to watch these shorts. They never get much attention, but a lot of them are really good. So search them out! All of these documentary shorts are available to watch. My personal favorite is "Colette." It's about an old lady who was a French Resistance fighter who decides to go back to Germany for the first time in 74 years with a young history student. I love the bond these two form and the emotion is high because they visit the concentration camp where this lady's brother died. As far as my predicted winner, I'm riding the Netflix ship this year with the shorts. That's "A Love Song for Latasha" here. And it's a nice tribute to a young black girl that got shot and killed in the 90s. There's relevance there and I'm betting on that for the victory. But I have my eye on "Do Not Split" as that's about the Hong Kong protests a couple of years ago. Really anything could win, though. You almost have to pick a name out of a hat for them. 

Short Film (Animated):

Nominations:

- "Burrow" - Madeline Sharafian and Michael Capbarat
- "Genius Loci" - Adrien Mérigeau and Amaury Ovise
- "If Anything Happens I Love You" - Will McCormack and Michael Govier
- "Opera" - Erick Oh
- "Yes-People" - Gísli Darri Halldórsson and Arnar Gunnarsson

Will Win:

- "If Anything Happens I Love You" - Will McCormack and Michael Govier

Should Win:

- "If Anything Happens I Love You" - Will McCormack and Michael Govier

Oh man. If you haven't seen "If Anything Happens I Love You," that's a powerful little film that's an absolute tear-jerker. It involves parents having to deal with their daughter becoming a victim of a school shooting, if that gives you a hint. It's on Netflix. Go watch it. Of all the shorts, I feel this one is the most safe to win. But Pixar is always in play. "Burrow" came to Disney+ with "Soul." So I wouldn't be surprised. It's good. But with how great the other choice is, I would be a bit disappointed if it lost to Pixar. 

Short film (Live Action):

Nominations:

- "Feeling Through" - Doug Roland and Susan Ruzenski 
- "The Letter Room" - Elvira Lind and Sofia Sondervan
- "The Present" - Farah Nabulsi and Ossama Bawardi
- "Two Distant Strangers" - Tavo Free and Desmond Roe
- "White Eye" - Tomer Shushan and Shira Hochman

Will Win:

- "Two Distant Strangers" - Tavo Free and Desmond Roe

Should Win:

- "Feeling Through" - Doug Roland and Susan Ruzenski

If you haven't been paying attention, the trial of former officer Derek Chauvin just concluded. During that, another black man was shot and killed by police. And that happening right around the time where Oscar voting was open makes me think they'll feel obligated to vote for "Two Distant Strangers," a short on Netflix about a black man experiencing a Groundhog Day phenomenon where he gets shot over and over by a racist, white officer. Instead of giving my complex feelings on this, which I don't have time for anyways, I'm going to recommend you search on YouTube for "Groundhog Day for a Black Man." Much better. Also, while you're there on YouTube, search for "Feeling Through," my favorite from this category. It's another feel good movie and I'll be super happy if it gets the win. It's about a guy who helps a blind and deaf man catch his bus. And the actor is actually blind and deaf, making it feel more genuine.

International Feature Film:

Nominations:

- "Another Round" - Denmark
- "Better Days" - Hong Kong 
- "Collective" - Romania
- "The Man Who Sold His Skin" - Tunisia 
- "Quo Vadis, Aida?" - Bosnia and Herzegovina 

Will Win:

- "Another Round" - Denmark

Should Win:

- N/A

I haven't seen any of these. But I hear good things about them. Three are on Hulu. I don't have Hulu. But if you do, you can watch them. I can't remember which three. Sorry. But "Another Round" also got a best director nomination, so I feel like that makes it a shew-in for the victory here. "Collective" also is a double nominee as it got in for documentary feature as well. But that's not quite the same thing as getting best director. 

Documentary (Feature):

Nominations:

- "Collective" - Alexander Nanau and Bianca Oana
- "Crip Camp" - Nicole Newnham, Jim LeBrecht and Sara Bolder
- "The Mole Agent" - Maite Alverdi and Marcela Santibáñez
- "My Octopus Teacher" - Pippa Ehrlich, James Reed and Craig Foster
- "Time" - Garrett Bradley, Lauren Domino and Kellen Quinn

Will Win:

- "My Octopus Teacher" - Pippa Ehrlich, James Reed and Craig Foster

Should Win:

- "My Octopus Teacher" - Pippa Ehrlich, James Reed and Craig Foster

I've not actually seen all these. In fact, I've only seen two, the two Netflix ones - "My Octopus Teacher" and "Crip Camp." So maybe I shouldn't declare a favorite, but I just love "My Octopus Teacher" so much, so I have to give it some love. And it seems to have all the momentum at the moment, winning most of the precursors. So I'll go with it as my prediction. But weird things often happen with this category, so who knows. I hear "Time" could be the spoiler. My personal gut points out that "Collective" is a double nominee, while "Crip Camp" is a popular Netflix documentary that's quite inspirational. So nothing would really surprise me. Accept for maybe "The Mole Agent." That would be a huge shock. 

Music (Original Song):

Nominations:

- "Fight for You" - H.E.R. (From "Judas and the Black Messiah"; Music by H.E.R. and Dernst Emile II; Lyrics by H.E.R. and Tiara Thomas) 
- "Hear My Voice" - Celeste (From "The Trial of the Chicago 7"; Music by Daniel Pemberton; Lyrics by Daniel Pemberton and Celeste Waite)
- "Husavik" - Will Ferrell and My Marianne (From "Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of the Fire Saga"; Music and Lyrics by Sava Kotecha, Fat Max Gsus and Rickard Göransson) 
- "lo sí (Seen)" - Laura Pausini (From "The Life Ahead"; Music by Diane Waren; Lyrics by Diane Waren and Laura Pausini)
- "Speak Now" - Leslie Odom, Jr. (From "One Night in Miami..."; Music and Lyrics by Leslie Odom, Jr. and Sam Ashworth) 

Will Win:

- "Speak Now" - Leslie Odom, Jr. (From "One Night in Miami..."; Music and Lyrics by Leslie Odom, Jr. and Sam Ashworth)

Should Win:

- "Husavik" - Will Ferrell and My Marianne (From "Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of the Fire Saga"; Music and Lyrics by Sava Kotecha, Fat Max Gsus and Rickard Göransson)

Honestly this is kind of a boring category for me this year. "Speak Now" has the momentum and will probably win. And while the songs are fine, "Husavik" is my easy favorite. Not only is it a much better song than the other nominees, but it's literally the song they perform at the climax of "Eurovision." I have no idea where the other four even play. My guess is end credits. They certainly aren't as important to their movie as "Husavik" if I'm wrong on my guess. But I'll tell you what I think should've been nominated along with "Husavik." "Make It Work" from "Jingle Jangle," "Everybody Cries" from "The Outpost," "Rain Song" from "Minari," and... yes... "Wuhan Flu" from "Borat Subsequent Moviefilm." Three of those were even on the Oscar shortlist for this category, with "Everybody Cries" being the only one that wasn't. So the Oscars messed this one up. 

Music (Original Score):

Nominations:

- "Da 5 Bloods" - Terence Blanchard
- "Mank" - Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross
- "Minari" - Emile Mosseri
- "News of the World" - James Newton Howard
- "Soul" - Trent Reznor, Atticus Ross and Jon Batiste

Will Win:

- "Soul" - Trent Reznor, Atticus Ross and Jon Batiste

Should Win:

- "News of the World" - James Newton Howard

I really enjoy listening to all the scores in the weeks leading up to the Oscars. And that's exactly what I did driving around in my car this month. And all five really have their positives. "Da 5 Bloods" has an appropriate military feel. "Mank" does a great job replicating a classic Hollywood score. "Minari" has a really pretty soundtrack. And I'm always a sucker for a Jazz score like "Soul." But the score for "News of the World" is the one I fell in love with this month. You might call it a typical movie score, but it's very string heavy score that is beyond gorgeous and does a great job of giving you a Western feel, which is what the movie is. And I learned that James Newton Howard has never won this award, despite some iconic scores. So why not give him a win here? 

Visual Effects:

Nominations:

- "Love and Monsters" - Matt Sloan, Genevieve Camilleri, Matt Everitt and Brian Cox
- "The Midnight Sky" - Matthew Kasmir, Christopher Lawrence and Matt Solomon
- "Mulan" - Sean Faden, Anders Langlands, Seth Maury and Steve Ingram
- "The One and Only Ivan" - Nick Davis, Greg Fisher, Ben Jones and Santiago Colomo Martinez 
- "Tenet" - Andrew Jackson, David Lee, Andrew Lockley and Scott Fisher

Will Win:

- "Tenet" - Andrew Jackson, David Lee, Andrew Lockley and Scott Fisher

Should Win:

- "Tenet" - Andrew Jackson, David Lee, Andrew Lockley and Scott Fisher

I find it hilarious that "Love and Monsters" got a nomination here. Only in 2020 would that happen. This is the category reserved for big Blockbusters. And they all jumped ship due to COVID. Except "Tenet." That still came out. So why not? Let's give "Tenet" the Oscar. Whether you loved it or thought it was really confusing, you can't deny that they did some trippy things with those visual effects that's definitely Oscar worthy. "The Midnight Sky" is the potential spoiler. And sure. The visual effects might be the only good part of that movie, but they're still good. I'm willing to separate the movie from the visual effects and say that could be deserving. But I'd still prefer "Tenet" get the win.

Sound:

Nominations:

- "Greyhound" - Warren Shaw, Michael Minkler, Beau Borders and David Wyman
- "Mank" - Ren Klyce, Jeremy Molod, David Parker, Nathan Nance and Drew Kunin
- "News of the World" - Oliver Tarney, Mike Prestwood Smith, William Miller and John Pritchett 
- "Soul" - Ren Klyce, Coya Elliott and David Parker 
- "Sound of Metal" - Nicolas Becker, Jaime Baksht, Michellee Couttolenc, Carlos Cortés and Phillip Bladh 

Will Win:

- "Sound of Metal" - Nicolas Becker, Jaime Baksht, Michellee Couttolenc, Carlos Cortés and Phillip Bladh

Should Win:

- "Sound of Metal" - Nicolas Becker, Jaime Baksht, Michellee Couttolenc, Carlos Cortés and Phillip Bladh

Just one sound category this year. No more trying to remember the difference between sound mixing and editing. They're all one category now. And while I'm sure many hours of hard work went into all of these, there's only one nominee that has the word sound in the title. And if you haven't seen "Sound of Metal," it's the sound design that makes that movie so great. They make you feel what it's like to be going deaf, which thus makes you feel for their character. It's one of the best uses of sound design that I can think of. And one of the only ones where the sound made all the difference in making the movie work. So let's not overthink this one, Academy. 

Makeup and Hairstyling:

Nominations:

- "Emma" - Marese Langan, Laura Allen and Claudia Stolze
- "Hillbilly Elegy" - Eryn Krueger Mekash, Matthew Mungle and Patricia Dehaney
- "Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom" - Sergio Lopez-Rivera, Mia Neal and Jamika Wilson 
- "Mank" - Gigi Williams, Kimberley Spiteri and Colleen LaBaff 
- "Pinocchio" - Mark Coulier, Dalia Colli and Francesco Pegoretti 

Will Win:

- "Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom" - Sergio Lopez-Rivera, Mia Neal and Jamika Wilson

Should Win:

- "Pinocchio" - Mark Coulier, Dalia Colli and Francesco Pegoretti

I think "Ma Rainey" is going to take this is. And I don't have a problem with that. But I have this strange feeling that "Pinocchio is going to take it. It's like when "Suicide Squad" won this award. No one saw that coming. But yet the more I think about it, the more I think that it would be a great win for "Pinocchio." And I haven't even seen the movie, but just watch the trailers and look at that brilliant work with the makeup. Maybe there's some CGI work there, I don't know. But I do think a good amount of the work is with makeup. That's what it looks like, anyways. 

Film Editing:

Nominations:

- "The Father" - Yorgos Lampinos 
- "Nomadland" - Chloé Zhao 
- "Promising Young Woman" - Frédéric Thoraval
- "Sound of Metal" - Mikkel E.G. Nielsen 
- "The Trial of the Chicago 7" - Alan Baumgarten

Will Win:

- "The Trial of the Chicago 7" - Alan Baumgarten

Should Win:

- "The Father" - Yorgos Lampinos

I'm not convinced on this one. I really think "Nomadland" could sweep this one up along its way to a best picture win. I have no evidence of that. But I'm not ruling it out. I'm also hearing a lot of people go "Sound of Metal" here, too. And that would be a fine win, although I personally think sound design is the key to that movie, not film editing. But I could see an argument of that being overlapping with film editing. Or Academy voters assuming as much. My pick, though, goes to what the Eddies chose, that's the American Cinema Editors group. They chose "The Trial of the Chicago 7" as their pick. So that's my prediction. As far as my personal choice, I think much of what "The Father" pulled off was due to the editing. They used some nice tricks to confuse the audience along with Anthony Hopkins. They would pan around and suddenly the setting changed on us. Some say production design should get credit for that. I say both, but leaning more towards editing tricks.

Costume Design:

Nominations:

- "Emma" - Alexandra Byrne 
- "Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom" - Ann Roth 
- "Mank" - Trish Summerville 
- "Mulan" - Bina Daigeler
- "Pinocchio" - Massimo Cantini Parrini 

Will Win:

- "Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom" - Ann Roth

Should Win:

- "Emma" - Alexandra Byrne

Another one where I'm pretty sure "Ma Rainey" is taking home another Oscar. And again, no complaints from me. But I'll throw my vote towards "Emma," our big period piece of the year. "Mank" would be a good choice, too, with them replicating classic Hollywood. But I don't know, I just always notice the great use of costume design when watching the period pieces. And "Emma" stood out more to me. But hey, if "Ma Rainey" does win, Ann Roth becomes one of the oldest to win an Academy award. She's 89 years old right now. So that's fun! 

Cinematography:

Nominations:

- "Judas and the Black Messiah" - Sean Bobbitt
- "Mank" - Erik Messerschmidt 
- "News of the World" - Dariusz Wolski
- "Nomadland" - Joshua James Richards 
- "The Trial of the Chicago 7" - Phedon Papamichael 

Will Win:

- "Nomadland" - Joshua James Richards

Should Win:

- "News of the World" - Dariusz Wolski

All of these are beautifully shot films. And no issues on my end with "Nomadland" taking the victory. "Mank" might be the spoiler if the Academy is taken with the classic Hollywood look. That would be a good win, too. Even if I didn't really enjoy "Mank," I did appreciate the craft and this is one of those things. But when it comes to beautiful, sweeping landscapes, "News of the World" is the easy favorite there. That is a beautiful movie. And it certainly helped that I saw that one on a theater, which many many not have done. And I saw "Nomadland" in a theater, too. Both beautifully shot films. But "News of the World" is far superior in that category. 

Production Design:

Nominations:

- "The Father" - Production Design: Peter Francis; Set Decoration: Cathy Featherstone
- "Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom" - Production Design: Mark Ricker; Set Decoration: Karen O'Hara and Diana Stoughton 
- "Mank" - Production Design: Donald Graham Burt; Set Decoration: Jam Pascale
- "News of the World" - Production Design: David Crank; Set Decoration: Elizabeth Keenan
- "Tenet" - Production Design: Nathan Crowley; Set Decoration: Kathy Lucas

Will Win:

- "Mank" - Production Design: Donald Graham Burt; Set Decoration: Jam Pascale

Should Win:

- "News of the World" - Production Design: David Crank; Set Decoration: Elizabeth Keenan

Many probably don't care or understand the level of conflict and turmoil I went through trying to decide my favorite in this category. I sat there looking at the choices and thought to myself, wow. Those are five great choices. A lot of great work went into creating the sets of these movies. I took out "Tenet" because in my brain the visual effects were what impressed me the most. And "The Father" felt like editing to me. And "Ma Rainey" is really just like a stage play with only two basic sets. So it came down to creating classic Hollywood vs. creating the Old West. I'm going the Old West. But the Oscars are going classic Hollywood. And as I am thinking about it, this is the third Oscar that I'd be giving "News of the World." I think I like that movie even more than I thought. Because I would be fine with Tom Hanks and Helena Zengal in acting. And even best picture would make me happy, even though it missed my personal top 10.

Animated Feature Film:

Nominations:

- "Onward" - Dan Scanlon and Kori Rae (Pixar Animation Studios) 
- "Over the Moon" - Glen Keane, Gennie Rim and Peilin Chou (Pearl Studio)
- "A Shaun the Sheep Movie: Farmageddon" - Richard Phelan, Will Becher and Paul Kewley (Aardman Animations) 
- "Soul" - Pete Docter (Pixar Animation Studios) 
- "Wolfwalkers" - Tomm Moore, Ross Stewart, Paul Young and Stéphan Roelants (Cartoon Saloon and Mélusine Productions)

Will Win:

- "Soul" - Pete Docter (Pixar Animation Studios)

Should Win:

- "Wolfwalkers" - Tomm Moore, Ross Stewart, Paul Young and Stéphan Roelants (Cartoon Saloon and Mélusine Productions)

Pixar has a chokehold on this category. Especially when they have an original film up for the award. The only original Pixar films to not win while this category was in existence was "Cars" and "Monsters, Inc." And the latter lost because "Shrek" was the opposition. And I suppose they'll get a third loss this year with two originals in the category. They can't both win. But "Soul" will take it because "Onward" felt like it came out 10 years ago and Academy voters have the memory of a goldfish. "Soul" has been sweeping the season, including winning 7 Annie awards. And it's nominated for three Oscars. So there's no question in my mind. But I will shout for joy if "Wolfwalkers" pulls the upset. That movie is excellent and well worth the Apple TV+ subscription to watch it.  And actually, "Soul" might be my No. 5 here, but that's because this category is stacked. All these are really good! 

Writing (Adapted Screenplay):

Nominations:

- "Borat Subsequent Moviefilm" - Screenplay by Sacha Baron Cohen, Anthony Hines, Dan Swimer, Peter Baynham, Erica Rivinoja, Dan Mazer, Jena Friedman and Lee Kern; Story by Sacha Baron Cohen, Anthony Hines, Dan Swimer and Nina Pedrad
- "The Father" - Screenplay by Christopher Hampton and Florian Zeller
- "Nomadland" - Written for the screen by Chloé Zhao 
- "One Night in Miami..." - Screenplay by Kemp Powers
- "The White Tiger" - Written for the screen by Ramin Bahrani

Will Win:

- "The Father" - Screenplay by Christopher Hampton and Florian Zeller

Should Win:

- "The Father" - Screenplay by Christopher Hampton and Florian Zeller

I just want to take a moment and chuckle at how many credited writers there are for "Borat." I also want to say that I think it's a bit weird that it is considered an adapted screenplay. Sometimes the Oscars are weird. That aside, the favorite to win this category is "Nomadland," so I'm going off on a limb a bit, but it did win the BAFTA for this category. So even if "Nomadland" is the favorite, I don't think it's a runaway favorite. I think "The Father" has a lot of support overall and I'm guessing they're going to want to give it something. And it's definitely the most deserving, in my opinion. There's a lot of things that come together to make "The Father" work so effectively and a very carefully crafted screenplay is certainly of those things. 

Writing (Original Screenplay):

Nominations:

- "Judas and the Black Messiah" - Screenplay by Will Bernson and Shaka King; Story by Will Bernson, Shaka King and Keith Lucas
- "Minari" - Written by Lee Isaac Chung
- "Promising Young Woman" - Written by Emerald Fennell 
- "Sound of Metal" - Screenplay by Darius Marder and Abraham Marder; Story by Darius Marder and Derek Cianfrance
- "The Trial of the Chicago 7" - Written by Aaron Sorkin

Will Win:

- "Promising Young Woman" - Written by Emerald Fennell

Should Win:

- "Promising Young Woman" - Written by Emerald Fennell

"Promising Young Woman" is my favorite movie of all the nominated candidates. Yet me predicting it to win here is more than just hopeful thinking. It does have a lot of support and, like "The Father," I do think they're going to want to reward it somehow. Original Screenplay is the perfect category to do so. It's a phenomenal and rather unique screenplay and has been winning most of these awards. I think this is a much more safe pick than my pick for Adapted Screenplay. If there's an upset, I think it'll be "The Trial of the Chicago 7." And while that would be disappointing to me, Aaron Sorkin is a master with his writing, so that would be fine with me, I suppose. A bit boring, though. "The Trial of the Chicago 7" is tailor-made for awards season, so I'd rather have something more fun and unique win this one. 

Actress is a Supporting Role:

Nominations:

- Maria Bakalova - "Borat Subsequent Moviefilm"
- Glenn Close - "Hillbilly Elegy"
- Olivia Colman - "The Father"
- Amanda Seyfried - "Mank"
- Yuh-Jung Youn - "Minari"

Will Win:

- Yuh-Jung Youn - "Minari"

Should Win:

- Olivia Colman - "The Father"

At one point this seemed to be up in the air. Both Amanda Seyfried and Maria Bakalova have been talked as potential winners. And I would be in favor of either of them. But in the last month or so, Yuh-Jung Youn has seemingly steamrolled to the lead and now seems to be one of the more safe picks here. And it'll be a fantastic win as she's the grandmother in "Minari" and arguably the best part of the movie. I was going to make her my choice as well, but I just had to go with Olivia Colman. I think "The Father" is a very special movie and, while Anthony Hopkins is front and center to that movie's success as he's the father struggling with dementia, the movie also doesn't work without the daughter struggling to figure out what to do and how to take care of her father. I think she gives a powerful performance that isn't getting talked about as much. And yes, while one of these days we'll have to give Glenn Close her win, it would feel wrong if "Hillbilly Elegy" was the one she got it for. I like that movie more than most, but that win would be a lifetime achievement award. In this case, she's the fifth best performance. 

Actor in a Supporting Role:

Nominations:

- Sacha Baron Cohen - "The Trial of the Chicago 7"
- Daniel Kaluuya - "Judas and the Black Messiah"
- Leslie Odom, Jr. - "One Night in Miami..."
- Paul Raci - "Sound of Metal"
- Lakeith Stanfield - "Judas and the Black Messiah"

Will Win:

- Daniel Kaluuya - "Judas and the Black Messiah"

Should Win:

- Paul Raci - "Sound of Metal"

Another easy one to call. In fact this might be the easiest of all the acting categories. Daniel Kaluuya has one everything leading up to this and for good reason. He gives an excellent performance as Fred Hampton. If there does happen to be a shocking upset, it'll be because of Lakeith Stanfield getting thrown in here for some reason. Don't get me wrong, I love Lakeith Stanfield in the movie. Maybe more than Daniel Kaluuya. But he's definitely the lead in the movie. Warner Bros. even campaigned for him in lead, which makes this even more strange. And I'm wondering if he might steal a few votes away from Kaluuya and thus cause Paul Raci to win. If that does happen, I will be so happy. Paul Raci's performance is so great. He makes you think that he's part of the deaf community and is also such a warm and welcoming presence. But all that said, I still think Kaluuya is going to win. 

Actress in a Leading Role:

Nominations:

- Viola Davis - "Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom"
- Andra Day - "The United States vs. Billie Holiday"
- Vanessa Kirby - "Pieces of a Woman"
- Frances McDormand - "Nomadland"
- Carey Mulligan - "Promising Young Woman"

Will Win:

- Viola Davis - "Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom"

Should Win:

- Carey Mulligan - "Promising Young Woman"

Oh goodness. This is the category that's giving me a headache. Me and everyone else who enjoys predicting the Oscars. Usually there's a front-runner that emerges in this categories, but this season has been bonkers as each of the nominees has won something. Except Vanessa Kirby. Which is unfortunate, actually. She might be my second choice behind Carey Mulligan, my personal choice by a long shot. But if Vanessa won the Oscar here, that would seem like a hilariously fitting way to finish this off. I'm not going to predict that, though. If there's anyone who does seem to have a slight lead, it's Viola, but statistics go against that. If she wins, it'll be the exact same winners as the SAG winners. That's only happened seven times in the last 27 years. And if she wins, that's the first time in 23 years that actress and actor came from the same movie. To do that without a best picture nomination is crazy. My gut says Andra Day even though there's not much to back that up. My gut also says Carey isn't going to win, nor do I want to curse her predicting her to do so. And Frances McDormand winning would give her a third Oscar win for acting. That's hard to do and she just barely got her second. So I don't know. I guess I'm going with Viola because everyone loves her, but that's my least confident prediction. 

Actor in a Leading Role:

Nominations:

- Riz Ahmed - "Sound of Metal"
- Chadwick Boseman - "Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom"
- Anthony Hopkins - "The Father"
- Gary Oldman - "Mank" 
- Steven Yeun - "Minari"

Will Win:

- Chadwick Boseman - "Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom"

Should Win:

- Anthony Hopkins - "The Father"

On the flip side, compared to the actress race, Chadwick Boseman winning seems to be more of a sure thing. Anthony Hopkins did win BAFTA and I think he has a lot more support than some people think. Not that my vote matters, but he also has my support. That's a legendary performance from a legendary actor and is quite easily the best performance of the five. The tricky conversation to have here is that Chadwick winning is more of a way to honor his legacy rather than to reward him for giving the year's best performance by a lead actor. And I have nothing against that. But he didn't give a better performance than Anthony Hopkins and I don't think he'd be winning if he hadn't passed away. In terms of the individual performances, Riz Ahmed might be my No. 2, with Chadwick No. 3. And Steven Yeun being a very close No. 4. Don't hate me for saying that, though. I'm just trying to objectively make a pick. 

Directing:

Nominations:

- Thomas Vinterberg - "Another Round"
- David Fincher - "Mank"
- Lee Isaac Chung - "Minari"
- Chloé Zhao - "Nomadland" 
- Emerald Fennell - "Promising Young Woman"

Will Win:

- Chloé Zhao - "Nomadland"

Should Win:

- Chloé Zhao - "Nomadland"

Another easy pick. Chloé Zhao has been sweeping the director awards this season and in this instance I think that's deserving. I'll fully admit that I'm not the best at judging what makes great directing. I think there's a lot of behind the scenes work that we don't see. But in my mind, what puts it over the top for me, despite "Nomadland" not being my favorite movie, is that most of the actors in the movie are actual Nomads playing versions of themselves on screen. I think it takes great directing to guide a bunch of non-actors to give excellent performances. Maybe that's not what everyone else is thinking, but that's my train of thought. And as much as I love Emerald Fennell and "Promising Young Woman," I think Emerald's screenplay combined with Carey's performance are what does the most heavy lifting. So I'd happily give Chloé the Oscar. 

Best Picture:

Nominations:

- "The Father" - David Parfitt, Jean-Louis Livi and Philippe Carcassonne, Producers (Sony Pictures Classics) 
- "Judas and the Black Messiah" - Shaka King, Charles D. King and Ryan Coogler, Producers (Warner Bros. Pictures) 

- "Mank" - Ceán Chaffin, Eric Roth and Douglas Urbanski, Producers (Netflix) 
- "Minari" - Christina Oh, Producer (A24)
- "Nomadland" - Frances McDormand, Peter Sears, Mollye Asher, Dan Janvey and Chloé Zhao, Producers (Searchlight Pictures)

- "Promising Young Woman" - Ben Browning, Ashley Fox, Emerald Fennell and Josey McNamara, Producers (Focus Features) 

- "Sound of Metal" - Bert Hamelinck and Sacha Ben Harroche, Producers (Amazon Studios) 

- "The Trial of the Chicago 7" - Marc Platt and Stuart Besser, Producers (Netflix) 

Will Win:

- "Nomadland" - Frances McDormand, Peter Sears, Mollye Asher, Dan Janvey and Chloé Zhao, Producers (Searchlight Pictures)

Should Win:

- "Promising Young Woman" - Ben Browning, Ashley Fox, Emerald Fennell and Josey McNamara, Producers (Focus Features)

And the biggest award of the night is one that seems fairly straightforward compared to past years. "Nomadland" is the favorite and it's been winning most things, so I'm not going to overthink this one. I'll go with the favorite and pick "Nomadland" to win. But the thing that gives me pause is the preferential voting they do for best picture at the Oscars. "Nomadland" might have the most first place votes, but that's not what gets you a best picture win. You have to have a strong number of second and third place votes. It's not the movie that the most people love that wins, it's the movie that has the least amount of hate. Because of that, I could see "The Trial of the Chicago 7" or "Minari" pulling the upset. "Promising Young Woman," my personal favorite, isn't winning. It's too divisive. Plus, my personal choice is always cursed. It never wins. And actually, I'm on a losing streak with picking best picture. So I may have just cursed "Nomadland." If so... good. It's my seventh favorite here, ahead of only "Mank." It's not bad. It's just overrated, in my opinion. There's a lot to love and appreciate, but it just doesn't feel best picture worthy.